The House resumed from May 8 consideration of Bill C-5, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 4.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-5 and the Group No. 4 amendments to the proposed species at risk legislation.

As the member of parliament for Nanaimo--Alberni, I think most residents of and visitors to my riding would agree that it is truly one of the most beautiful places in Canada. I have travelled a lot internationally and it is no exaggeration to say Vancouver Island is one of the most picturesque places in the world.

Order, colleagues. I wonder if we might have the co-operation of the House so we can pursue the debate on Bill C-5. If there are discussions, I wonder if they might take place in the respective lobbies so that we can continue the business of the House with some decorum.

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I believe that Nanaimo--Alberni has the distinction of being the only riding with two UNESCO biospheres. UNESCO is the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. We have Clayoquot Sound on the west coast of Vancouver Island, which includes Tofino and the beautiful Pacific Rim National Park, and the Mount Arrowsmith Biosphere Reserve, recently proclaimed, right where I live, from the summit of Mount Arrowsmith right down to the 300 foot depths of the Strait of Georgia.

Respect for the environment and wildlife is very much a part of the social consciousness of my constituents. Not only are ecotourism, sustaining a healthy environment and protection of species at risk important to our local economy, they are a few of the kaleidoscope of factors that make Vancouver Island such a desirable place to live and to vacation.

It is a reality that the human presence in paradise does affect the environment profoundly. I am aware of and also concerned about the impact man has on our neighbours, large and small, the flora and fauna, the organisms we share this planet with.

My background is in the biological sciences. My personal pursuit of knowledge at the undergraduate level led me to a major in zoology and a minor in chemistry. I continued my education by studying these fabulous human bodies that we have each been given. The more we know about life, the more amazing the trip through life can be. If we have eyes to seek it, there is an amazing array of activity around us. We should check it out: under a rock, under a log, in the tide pool and along the riparian zone that straddles our streams. We can break the surface of our coastal waters and enter a whole new universe of activity.

That is what this subject, species at risk, is all about, but what about Bill C-5? Will it deliver what we hope to achieve? What about the Group No. 4 amendments? What are we hoping to achieve here?

Residents in my riding and indeed the majority of Canadians share my concern and believe in protecting and enhancing the health of our ecosystems. However, what is quite startling is that the proposed legislation was developed in virtual isolation. There was no consultation initiated by government with the various vested interests and stakeholders.

As well, I should mention that while I respect the spirit and the tenor of the government's objectives with regard to protecting species at risk, I cannot support the methods it proposes to achieve its goals, as demonstrated today, in fact, when it is even closing down debate on this important subject.

As for the Group No. 4 amendments to Bill C-5, Motion No. 127 specifically, which is supported by my party, demands that the government liaise with Canadians to gather feedback before invoking such sweeping legislation. Policy conceived by one party or catering to one set of interests is counterproductive and risks alienating Canadians. This risks failure by denying the necessary flexibility to deal with unanticipated economic and social changes. The government should know better. It should understand that consultation with all parties is an important part of the policy process. On this, Bill C-5 has failed. That is why this amendment is so fundamentally necessary.

In 1996 the federal government released its findings on modern comptrollership, a report entitled “Strengthening Our Policy Capacity”. The task force charged with the report identified six mandatory prerequisites for policy engineering. The theme that was repeated throughout these recommendations was collaboration, not just among bureaucrats and across departments but, most important, with the citizens and non-governmental organizations most affected. The silos of government and administrative effectiveness may be continually thwarted by narrow organizational and policy self-interest. Catering solely to one opinion or failing to consult with all parties is almost certain to cause more harm than good.

Within the Group No. 4 amendments to Bill C-5 we have identified several areas where legislation does not respect the principles of horizontality, collaboration, transparency and accountability.

Issues concerning public consultation and discussion are important, as I touched on a moment ago. The government, according to its own treasury board guidelines, pledged to pursue an open and transparent approach to service that incorporates a multitude of policy partners across a spectrum of interests. At least that is what was written in treasury board's “Results for Canadians”. However, given the opportunity to apply these concepts in Bill C-5, the government has failed to heed its own advice. There is a fundamental importance, even an obligation, to make consultations as wide as possible, thereby ensuring that consultations have a legitimate impact on the administration of the species at risk legislation.

Sound policy, effective consultation and responsible governance need to have built in mechanisms for review. Initially the bill called for parliamentary review of Bill C-5 after a period of five years. The standing committee contributed to this theme by stating that subsequent reviews would occur at five year intervals. It should be noted that mandatory reviews of legislation are not as rigid as sunset clauses, but they are, nevertheless, identifiable junctures and opportunities to examine how well the bill is functioning. They allow for a review of the questions that must be asked and are an important part of the policy process.

Periodic reviews ask implicit and vital questions. What was the intent of the legislation? What were its goals and objectives? Furthermore, a review demands to know if the implementation strategy of the legislation is achieving its mandated goals. Finally, is it achieving these goals within the allocated budgetary resources? Periodic reviews of legislation ensure that legislation remains evergreen and robust. Unanticipated events and unforeseen changes in the future can profoundly affect legislation and render it impotent or, worse, damaging.

I want to illustrate the consequences that can occur when there are no tools for reviewing legislation that is ill-conceived. I am sure that many of my colleagues in the House recall that failure to anticipate events played a key role in inflicting massive damage to the oil and gas sector in western Canada.

Of course I refer to the national energy policy of the 1980s. I hear some hon. members saying they remember.

The national energy policy, which, I will add, was supported by the Prime Minister, was disastrous. It failed to consider the possibility for capital flight or a drop in the world petroleum price index. It failed to anticipate American responses to the nationalization of the petroleum industry or a unilaterally imposed federal restriction of oil exports. It also failed to consider the profoundly negative impact the NEP had on federalism in Canada, nor did it foresee the consequent feelings of alienation and resentment that still abound and are harboured by some and linger in the west as a result of such poor policy.

No piece of legislation is perfect. Therefore, the power to periodically review legislation is a significant responsibility. Reviews and evaluations are not just a good idea: They should be a fundamental principle of governing. However, Motion No. 130 from the government will remove the standing committee amendment calling for mandatory reviews.

Apparently, despite the lessons learned, the government is not practising any degree of due diligence. The government feels that reviewing legislation for Bill C-5 is unnecessary. Perhaps it feels that the democratic spirit of reviews are nuisance clauses and are consequently easily dismissed, or perhaps it feels that Bill C-5 possesses perfect design and requires no mandatory review. Such is surely not the case.

During earlier debates of Bill C-5 we identified several gaps in the proposed legislation which may indeed have some profound and unanticipated impacts on Canadians. Two that immediately come to memory are criminal liability without intent and lack of compensation for financial losses. I will go into detail only briefly since we have already had these discussions at length.

First, the act will not work without guaranteeing fair and reasonable compensation for property owners and resource users who suffer losses. Farmers, ranchers and other property owners want to protect endangered species, but should not be forced to do it at the expense of their livelihoods.

Second, criminal liability must require intent. The act will make criminals out of people who may inadvertently or unknowingly harm endangered species or their habitat. This is unnecessarily confrontational and makes endangered species a threat to property owners.

These are very serious and in fact, I would say, negligent omissions. It therefore becomes all the more necessary to ensure that periodic reviews of Bill C-5 are drafted into the legislation. I am hopeful that common sense will prevail and the government will accept the amendments that will make Bill C-5 workable. The power to review must be present, the necessity to consult should be evident, and the importance of adequate compensation is paramount to successful legislation.